It constitutional to ban “Partial-Blurt” abortions without providing for an exception to protect the health of the mother? My partner and I were on the negative side, which means there should be an exception for the mom to get a ABA if the mother’s health is at risk. Or if the doctor recommends it would be best for the mother to do have a ABA because she might have complications. In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Signed by President George W.
Bush, the ban was Immediately challenged In federal court but On April 18, 2007, the Court handed own Its decision in the Gonzales v. Chart case. Partial birth abortion is a late-term abortion of a fetus that has already died, or is killed before being completely removed from the mother. The procedure can be traumatizing and may sound inhuman but we are not saying that this should be used as a form of birth control but should be used if the mother is at risk of dying if she has the baby. It should only be accepted In serious cases in which the pregnancy could harm the mother or the fetus.
There are a lot of medical conditions that doctors and or mothers would want to do a ABA, some medical conditions and indications may develop after the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy that could threaten the mother’s life and/or health. These would be late occurring medical reasons for which we believe it is okay to get a partial birth abortion: heart failure, severe or uncontrollable diabetes, serious renal disease, uncontrollable hypertension (high blood pressure) and/or Severe depression.
What may be confusing when we mention depression is that people think that It gives them an excuse to have a ABA but in fact we mean that some people with severe depression may lead to other symptoms that may put the baby in harm while in the mother. For example when some people are depressed they drink, smoke, and in some cases they starve themselves, which would deprive the baby of the nutrients they need to survive. Other medical conditions of the fetus, although rare, but found In some cases where the mothers fetus that she carried had a genetic condition called Truisms 13.
Its anomalies Included extensive brain damage, serious heart complications, and liver, kidney, and intestinal malformations. The baby’s condition was incompatible with life. May become known or could develop after the first trimester of the pregnancy which ay cause the woman to seek an abortion. The most common logistical and personal reasons for mothers to get partial birth abortions include: Inability to afford a first trimester abortion, inability to locate medical assistance during the first trimester and lack of financial resources or no emotional or financial support.
We feel that there should be an exception for the mother because if she did happen to pass away while delivering a baby when she could have had a ABA how many other children is she leaving behind? We know it’s hard to lose a child, but it’s even harder when children lose their mother. Also if we do not allow mothers the right to make there own decision on what would be In there best Interest, to what extent will they go to rid the baby from their body themselves (Black Alley Abortions).
The government should strengths and weaknesses it’s hard to choose because the affirmative side had some very good input, the described ABA as an abortion procedure involving the feet-first delivery of all but the child’s head in order for the physician to puncture the base of the skull and extract the brain matter which allows the baby’s head to shrink, completing the delivery of a dead child to make it sound a lot worse and sway peoples decisions, which was actually a good way to describe it if you are trying to sway the Jury vote.
I think the way they describes ABA was one of there bigger strengths. But one of there weaknesses were that they weren’t always on track with what the question was asking which was Is it constitutional to ban “Partial-Birth” abortions without providing for an exception to protect the health of the mother? They got a little of track but it was a complicated question for both sides. The negative side (Ashley and my side) we had lots of good information too, ours was a lot hurter but we still tried to get our point across within the time allowed, but we also got off topic at times too.
It’s hard to decide because after doing this research it’s made me think that there should be an exception to some extent but there are a lot of factors that tie into making a decision on where to draw the line. Our debate opponents gave reasons on why partial birth abortion should be illegal because it is wrong, and by killing the baby to save the mom you are still taking a life where as if doctors tried hard enough to find ways that they both could live then they should try and have the baby. The Partial Birth Abortion ban act of 2003 is an act that prohibits the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
If anyone were to knowingly perform a partial birth abortion and kills a human fetus is fined or imprisoned for two years, or both. The law was put into congress in 2003, and in 2007 the U. S. Supreme Court supported the case of Gonzales v. Chart, and on April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court supported the nationwide ban on the partial birth abortion procedure. After the ruling, congress responded by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure for partial birth abortions as gruesome, inhumane and never ethically necessary to preserve a woman’s health.
But federal Judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, but not New York. Some abortion rights groups argued that the procedure at times could be the safest for the mother if she needs to have an abortion. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal in the united states.
